Loading in 5 sec....

Group Modeling for fMRIPowerPoint Presentation

Group Modeling for fMRI

- 185 Views
- Uploaded on

Download Presentation
## PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Group Modeling for fMRI' - salena

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Overview

Overview

Overview

Overview

Overview

Group Modelingfor fMRI

Thomas Nichols, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Biostatistics

http://www.sph.umich.edu/~nichols

IPAM MBI

July 21, 2004

Overview

- Mixed effects motivation
- Evaluating mixed effects methods
- Case Studies
- Summary statistic approach (HF)
- SPM2
- FSL3

- Conclusions

Overview

- Mixed effects motivation
- Evaluating mixed effects methods
- Case Studies
- Summary statistic approach (HF)
- SnPM
- SPM2
- FSL3

- Conclusions

Lexicon

Hierarchical Models

- Mixed Effects Models
- Random Effects (RFX) Models
- Components of Variance
... all the same

... all alluding to multiple sources of variation

(in contrast to fixed effects)

Standard linear modelassumes only one source of iid random variation

Consider this RT data

Here, two sources

Within subject var.

Between subject var.

Causes dependence in

3 Ss, 5 replicated RT’s

Random Effects IllustrationResiduals

Distribution of each subject’s estimated effect

Fixed vs.RandomEffects in fMRI2FFX

Subj. 1

Subj. 2

- Fixed Effects
- Intra-subject variation suggests all these subjects different from zero

- Random Effects
- Intersubject variation suggests population not very different from zero

Subj. 3

Subj. 4

Subj. 5

Subj. 6

0

2RFX

Distribution of population effect

Fixed Effects

- Only variation (over subjects/sessions) is measurement error
- True Response magnitude is fixed

Random/Mixed Effects

- Two sources of variation
- Measurement error
- Response magnitude

- Response magnitude is random
- Each subject/session has random magnitude

Random/Mixed Effects

- Two sources of variation
- Measurement error
- Response magnitude

- Response magnitude is random
- Each subject/session has random magnitude
- But note, population mean magnitude is fixed

Fixed vs. Random

- Fixed isn’t “wrong,” just usually isn’t of interest
- Fixed Effects Inference
- “I can see this effect in this cohort”

- Random Effects Inference
- “If I were to sample a new cohort from the population I would get the same result”

Overview

- Mixed effects motivation
- Evaluating mixed effects methods
- Case Studies
- Summary statistic approach (HF)
- SnPM
- SPM2
- FSL3

- Conclusions

Assessing RFX ModelsIssues to Consider

- Assumptions & Limitations
- What must I assume?
- When can I use it

- Efficiency & Power
- How sensitive is it?

- Validity & Robustness
- Can I trust the P-values?
- Are the standard errors correct?
- If assumptions off, things still OK?

Issues: Assumptions

- Distributional Assumptions
- Gaussian? Nonparametric?

- Homogeneous Variance
- Over subjects?
- Over conditions?

- Independence
- Across subjects?
- Across conditions/repeated measures
- Note:
- Nonsphericity = (Heterogeneous Var) or (Dependence)

Issues: Soft AssumptionsRegularization

- Regularization
- Weakened homogeneity assumption
- Usually variance/autocorrelation regularized over space

- Examples
- fmristat - local pooling (smoothing) of (2RFX)/(2FFX)
- SnPM - local pooling (smoothing) of 2RFX
- FSL3 - Bayesian (noninformative) prior on 2RFX

Issues: Efficiency & Power

- Efficiency: 1/(Estmator Variance)
- Goes up with n

- Power: Chance of detecting effect
- Goes up with n
- Also goes up with degrees of freedom (DF)
- DF accounts for uncertainty in estimate of 2RFX
- Usually DF and n yoked, e.g. DF = n-p

Issues: Validity

- Are P-values accurate?
- I reject my null when P < 0.05Is my risk of false positives controlled at 5%?
- “Exact” control
- FPR = a

- Valid control (possibly conservative)
- FPR a

- Problems when
- Standard Errors inaccurate
- Degrees of freedom inaccurate

Overview

- Mixed effects motivation
- Evaluating mixed effects methods
- Case Studies
- Summary statistic approach (HF)
- SnPM
- SPM2
- FSL3

- Conclusions

Four RFX Approaches in fMRI

- Holmes & Friston (HF)
- Summary Statistic approach (contrasts only)
- Holmes & Friston (HBM 1998). Generalisability, Random Effects & Population Inference. NI, 7(4 (2/3)):S754, 1999.

- Holmes et al. (SnPM)
- Permutation inference on summary statistics
- Nichols & Holmes (2001). Nonparametric Permutation Tests for Functional Neuroimaging: A Primer with Examples. HBM, 15;1-25.
- Holmes, Blair, Watson & Ford (1996). Nonparametric Analysis of Statistic Images from Functional Mapping Experiments. JCBFM, 16:7-22.

- Friston et al. (SPM2)
- Empirical Bayesian approach
- Friston et al. Classical and Bayesian inference in neuroimagining: theory. NI 16(2):465-483, 2002
- Friston et al. Classical and Bayesian inference in neuroimaging: variance component estimation in fMRI. NI: 16(2):484-512, 2002.

- Beckmann et al. & Woolrich et al. (FSL3)
- Summary Statistics (contrast estimates and variance)
- Beckmann, Jenkinson & Smith. General Multilevel linear modeling for group analysis in fMRI. NI 20(2):1052-1063 (2003)
- Woolrich, Behrens et al. Multilevel linear modeling for fMRI group analysis using Bayesian inference. NI 21:1732-1747 (2004)

- Mixed effects motivation
- Evaluating mixed effects methods
- Case Studies
- Summary statistic approach (HF)
- SnPM
- SPM2
- FSL3

- Conclusions

Case Studies:Holmes & Friston

- Unweighted summary statistic approach
- 1- or 2-sample t test on contrast images
- Intrasubject variance images not used (c.f. FSL)

- Proceedure
- Fit GLM for each subject i
- Compute cbi, contrast estimate
- Analyze {cbi}i

Case Studies: HFAssumptions

- Distribution
- Normality
- Independent subjects

- Homogeneous Variance
- Intrasubject variance homogeneous
- 2FFX same for all subjects

- Balanced designs

- Intrasubject variance homogeneous

From HBMPosterWE 253

Case Studies: HFLimitations- Limitations
- Only single image per subject
- If 2 or more conditions,Must run separate model for each contrast

- Limitation a strength!
- No sphericity assumption made on conditions
- Though nonsphericity itself may be of interest...

Case Studies: HFEfficiency

- If assumptions true
- Optimal, fully efficient

- If 2FFX differs between subjects
- Reduced efficiency
- Here, optimal requires down-weighting the 3 highly variable subjects

0

Case Studies: HFValidity

- If assumptions true
- Exact P-values

- If 2FFX differs btw subj.
- Standard errors OK
- Est. of 2RFX unbiased

- DF not OK
- Here, 3 Ss dominate
- DF < 5 = 6-1

- Standard errors OK

0

2RFX

Case Studies: HFRobustness

- Heterogeneity of 2FFX across subjects...
- How bad is bad?

- Dramatic imbalance (rough rules of thumb only!)
- Some subjects missing 1/2 or more sessions
- Measured covariates of interest having dramatically different efficiency
- E.g. Split event related predictor by correct/incorrect
- One subj 5% trials correct, other subj 80% trials correct

- Dramatic heteroscedasticity
- A “bad” subject, e.g. head movement, spike artifacts

- Mixed effects motivation
- Evaluating mixed effects methods
- Case Studies
- Summary statistic approach (HF)
- SnPM
- SPM2
- FSL3

- Conclusions

Parametric Null Distribution

5%

Nonparametric Null Distribution

Case Studies: SnPM- No Gaussian assumption
- Instead, uses data to find empirical distribution

Permutation TestToy Example

- Data from V1 voxel in visual stim. experiment
A: Active, flashing checkerboard B: Baseline, fixation

6 blocks, ABABAB Just consider block averages...

- Null hypothesis Ho
- No experimental effect, A & B labels arbitrary

- Statistic
- Mean difference

Permutation TestToy Example

- Under Ho
- Consider all equivalent relabelings

Permutation TestToy Example

- Under Ho
- Consider all equivalent relabelings
- Compute all possible statistic values

Permutation TestToy Example

- Under Ho
- Consider all equivalent relabelings
- Compute all possible statistic values
- Find 95%ile of permutation distribution

Permutation TestToy Example

- Under Ho
- Consider all equivalent relabelings
- Compute all possible statistic values
- Find 95%ile of permutation distribution

Permutation TestToy Example

- Under Ho
- Consider all equivalent relabelings
- Compute all possible statistic values
- Find 95%ile of permutation distribution

-8

-4

0

4

8

Case Studies: SnPMAssumptions

- 1-Sample t on difference data
- Under null, differences distn symmetric about 0
- OK if 2FFX differs btw subjects!

- Subjects independent

- Under null, differences distn symmetric about 0
- 2-Sample t
- Under null, distn of all data the same
- Implies 2FFX must be the same across subjects

- Subjects independent

- Under null, distn of all data the same

Case Studies: SnPMEfficiency

- Just as with HF...
- Lower efficiency if heterogeneous variance
- Efficiency increases with n
- Efficiency increases with DF
- How to increase DF w/out increasing n?
- Variance smoothing!

Case Studies: SnPMSmoothed Variance t

- For low df, variance estimates poor
- Variance image “spikey”

- Consider smoothed variance t statistic

t-statistic

variance

Permutation TestSmoothed Variance t

- Smoothed variance estimate better
- Variance “regularized”
- df effectively increased, but no RFT result

SmoothedVariancet-statistic

mean difference

smoothedvariance

Item recognition task

1-sample t test on diff. imgs

FWE threshold

uRF = 9.87uBonf = 9.805 sig. vox.

uPerm = 7.67 58 sig. vox.

378 sig. vox.

Smoothed Variance t Statistic,Nonparametric Threshold

t11Statistic, Nonparametric Threshold

t11Statistic, RF & Bonf. Threshold

Permutation Distn Maximum t11

Small GroupfMRI ExampleWorking memory data: Marshuetz et al (2000)

Case Studies: SnPMValidity

- If assumptions true
- P-values’s exact

- Note on “Scope of inference”
- SnPM can make inference on population
- Simply need to assume random sampling of population
- Just as with parametric methods!

Case Studies: SnPMRobustness

- If data not exchangeable under null
- Can be invalid, P-values too liberal
- More typically, valid but conservative

- Mixed effects motivation
- Evaluating mixed effects methods
- Case Studies
- Summary statistic approach (HF)
- SnPM
- SPM2
- FSL3

- Conclusions

Case Study: SPM2

- 1 effect per subject
- Uses Holmes & Friston approach

- >1 effect per subject
- Variance basis function approach used...

12 subjects,4 conditions

Use F-test to find differences btw conditions

Standard Assumptions

Identical distn

Independence

“Sphericity”... but here not realistic!

SPM2 Notation: iid casey = X + e

N 1 N pp 1 N 1

X

Error covariance

N

N

Measurements btw subjects uncorrelated

Measurements w/in subjects correlated

Multiple Variance Componentsy = X + e

N 1 N pp 1 N 1

Error covariance

N

N

Errors can now have

different variances and

there can be correlations

Allows for ‘nonsphericity’

but not identical

Errors are not independent

and not identical

Non-Sphericity ModelingError Covariance

Case Study: SPM2

- Assumptions & Limitations
- assumed to globallyhomogeneous
- lk’s only estimated from voxels with large F
- Most realistically, Cor(e) spatially heterogeneous
- Intrasubject variance assumed homogeneous

Case Study: SPM2

- Efficiency & Power
- If assumptions true, fully efficient

- Validity & Robustness
- P-values could be wrong (over or under) if local Cor(e) very different from globally assumed
- Stronger assumptions than Holmes & Friston

- Mixed effects motivation
- Evaluating mixed effects methods
- Case Studies
- Summary statistic approach (HF)
- SnPM
- SPM2
- FSL3

- Conclusions

FSL3: Full Mixed Effects Model

First-level, combines sessions

Second-level, combines subjects

Third-level, combines/compares groups

Crucially, summary stats here are not just estimated effects.Summary Stats needed for equivalence:

Summary Stats EquivalenceBeckman et al., 2003

Case Study: FSL3’s FLAME

- Uses summary-stats model equivalent to full Mixed Effects model
- Doesn’t assume intrasubject variance is homogeneous
- Designs can be unbalanced
- Subjects measurement error can vary

Case Study: FSL3’s FLAME

- Bayesian Estimation
- Priors, priors, priors
- Use reference prior

- Final inference on posterior of b
- b | y has Multivariate T distn (MVT)but with unknown dof

dof?

BIDET

MCMC

Approximating MVTsFAST

Estimate

MVT

Model

Samples

BIDET = Bayesian Inference with Distribution Estimation using T

SLOW

- Mixed effects motivation
- Evaluating mixed effects methods
- Case Studies
- Summary statistic approach (HF)
- SnPM
- SPM2
- FSL3

- Conclusions

Conclusions

- Random Effects crucial for pop. inference
- Don’t fall in love with your model!
- Evaluate...
- Assumptions
- Efficiency/Power
- Validity & Robustness

Download Presentation

Connecting to Server..